An analysis and insight into the effectiveness of scaffolding: EFL instructors’/teachers’ perceptions and attitudes

Abdelmagid Abdelrahman Awadelkarim
{"title":"An analysis and insight into the effectiveness of scaffolding: EFL instructors’/teachers’ perceptions and attitudes","authors":"Abdelmagid Abdelrahman Awadelkarim","doi":"10.52462/jlls.58","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the effectiveness of scaffolding in the context of Majmaah University EFL. It does so by exploring the attitudes and perceptions of a randomly selected group of (30) EFL instructors of various backgrounds and degrees. Theoretically, it is informed by a medley of relevant theories and approaches Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Learning, Bakhtin's Dialogism and Habermas’ Communicative Rationality. Methodologically, a combination of a questionnaire (23 participants) and focus group discussions (FGD) (7 participants) were employed to collect the data and then analyze it using a pertinent tool for each instrument. The three questions the paper set out to answer were: 1) what are the perceptions and attitudes of Majmaah University EFL teachers towards scaffolding? 2) To what extent are they aware of scaffolding in teaching? 3) What is their attitude for practicing scaffolding in pedagogical contexts?. Even though the analysis largely revealed that the participants practiced scaffolding in some way or the other and that their attitudes and perceptions regarding practical pedagogical scaffolding were exceedingly positive, there were, nonetheless, interesting complexities unveiled all along. Contrary to the seemingly participants’ perception of a strong belief of their knowledge of the principles and approaches underlying scaffolding, profound analysis suggests that they, in fact, lack adequate relevant knowledge/competence. The participants appeared less confident of their beliefs when it comes to practical and pedagogical scaffolding. The major contribution of this paper lies in the apparent gap it fills with its narrow focus on the instructors’ attitudes and perceptions alongside its innovative employment of focus group discussion (FGD) as an effective research tool.","PeriodicalId":16272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.58","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of scaffolding in the context of Majmaah University EFL. It does so by exploring the attitudes and perceptions of a randomly selected group of (30) EFL instructors of various backgrounds and degrees. Theoretically, it is informed by a medley of relevant theories and approaches Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Learning, Bakhtin's Dialogism and Habermas’ Communicative Rationality. Methodologically, a combination of a questionnaire (23 participants) and focus group discussions (FGD) (7 participants) were employed to collect the data and then analyze it using a pertinent tool for each instrument. The three questions the paper set out to answer were: 1) what are the perceptions and attitudes of Majmaah University EFL teachers towards scaffolding? 2) To what extent are they aware of scaffolding in teaching? 3) What is their attitude for practicing scaffolding in pedagogical contexts?. Even though the analysis largely revealed that the participants practiced scaffolding in some way or the other and that their attitudes and perceptions regarding practical pedagogical scaffolding were exceedingly positive, there were, nonetheless, interesting complexities unveiled all along. Contrary to the seemingly participants’ perception of a strong belief of their knowledge of the principles and approaches underlying scaffolding, profound analysis suggests that they, in fact, lack adequate relevant knowledge/competence. The participants appeared less confident of their beliefs when it comes to practical and pedagogical scaffolding. The major contribution of this paper lies in the apparent gap it fills with its narrow focus on the instructors’ attitudes and perceptions alongside its innovative employment of focus group discussion (FGD) as an effective research tool.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
框架教学法的有效性分析与洞察:英语教师的认知与态度
本研究考察了在Majmaah大学外语教学中脚手架教学的有效性。本文通过对随机选择的30名不同背景和学位的英语教师的态度和看法进行研究。从理论上讲,它受到维果茨基的社会文化学习理论、巴赫金的对话论和哈贝马斯的交往理性等相关理论和方法的影响。在方法上,采用问卷调查(23名参与者)和焦点小组讨论(FGD)(7名参与者)的组合来收集数据,然后使用每种工具的相关工具进行分析。本文打算回答的三个问题是:1)Majmaah大学英语教师对脚手架的看法和态度是什么?2)他们在教学中对脚手架的认知程度如何?3)他们对在教学情境中实践脚手架的态度是什么?尽管分析在很大程度上揭示了参与者以某种方式练习脚手架,并且他们对实用教学脚手架的态度和看法非常积极,但仍然有一些有趣的复杂性一直被揭示出来。表面上,参与者认为他们对脚手架背后的原则和方法的知识有很强的信心,但深入的分析表明,他们实际上缺乏足够的相关知识/能力。当涉及到实践和教学脚手架时,参与者似乎对自己的信念不那么自信。本文的主要贡献在于其对教师态度和看法的狭隘关注以及焦点小组讨论(FGD)作为有效研究工具的创新运用填补了明显的空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring The Intersection Of Language, Childhood Emotional Neglect, And Family Dynamics In Pinto’s Em And The Big Hoom: An Analysis Of Illness Narratives Silenced Voices And Fractured Language: The Representation Of Nomi’s Childhood Trauma In Anuradha Roy’s Sleeping On Jupiter Social contexts of the pronoun usage in Balinese Diverse ELT reading materials: Cross mapping gender ideas of respective readers The authors’ research gap strategies in ELT research article introductions: Does Scopus journal quartile matter?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1